Sam Gagner | C/W

[GoldenAlien]

2 hours ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

The Canucks have a lot of control on the deployment of young players in Utica. If the higher ups want to see Dahlen on the 1st powerplay unit, he'll be on the 1st powerplay unit. If the kids show they deserve those minutes and/or Bennimg wants to see them there, they will be there. All that means is that someone like Gagner would be on the 2nd unit, which is a very formidable unit at the AHL level. 

 

Having our prospects play with players like Gagner in the AHL would provide more than just a couple extra goals. It would allow them to play a style of game that is closer to the NHL. It's the idea that how they get their goals is more important than how many goals they get. Some prospects (Dahlen and Lind particularly in this case) would benefit from playing with someone who can make plays creatively to develop their skill games whereas someone like Gadjovich could grind for some goals anywhere in the lineup. 

 

I agree that it does give Benning some goodwill and it is something to consider, but I'm not sure it was worth it in this case. 

 

If you sign a player for 3 years and then waive them after 1, it's not a great signing. 

The Canucks don't get to dictate the Comets' lineup.  Will the Canucks management talk to Cull, let him know what they think the players need to work on, etc?  Sure.  But much like Benning can talk to Green, but Green sets the lineup, Cull sets his own lineup.  He knows the Canucks cut his paycheck, he cares about developing prospects for the Canucks.  But end of the day, the fastest way for an AHL coach to get to the NHL is through winning.  You don't see an AHL coach from a bottom dweller team get offered an NHL gig, even if he's good with the kids.  And honestly, Cull's paid to win too.  While the pressure isn't as intense as the NHL, if the Comets finishes last in the league this year, he probably loses his job. 

 

If he thinks Sam Gagner on PP1 will get a few extra wins, he's going to do it.  We've seen the preference for vets, in every level, from the juniors to European leagues to the NHL.  Coaches like known commodities -- the Dale Weise and Aaron Rome of the world often push out rookies.  Yes, eventually a talented rookie will get his chance, but AHL is a developmental league.  Why are we making our top prospects wait 6 months just so they can get a look on the PP?  If they're going to play 12 mins and get no PP time, they could just stay with the big club and play on the 4th line.  The whole point of this is they can make mistakes, try things, and not be afraid they'll be sitting in the press box the next game.

 

As I've posted before -- guys like Gagner don't actually make a different in the outcome of prospects.  Playing with him wouldn't have turned Shinkaruk into Skinner, or Gaunce into J. Staal.  Shinkaruk actually did worse playing with Jankowski after he was traded -- and Jankowski was an AHL All-Star at the time and is now in the NHL and better than Gagner.  There's no reason that without Gagner, the prospects can't learn an NHL game.  Again, look at other AHL teams, how many has a guy like Gagner on the roster?  So what happens to all their prospects?  Just playing grinders' games?  Getting their potential destroyed?  How did Goldobin ever find a way to develop offensively, without Gagner feeding him passes?

 

If playing with Gagner for a few months can turn Palmu into DeBrincat, by all means, I'll book his Uber to Pearson airport.  But if a guy who projects to a 30pt NHL player still develops to a 30pt player after playing with Gagner, then Gagner has made zero difference.  It doesn't really matter how this guy became a 30pt NHL player.  And it's not like Kero and Gaudette are such terrible AHLers that playing with them derails your career.  If Gadjovich can't develop because he's playing with Gaudette, then he was always going to be another Archibald to begin with.

 

Whether the Gagner signing was good is pointless to debate at this juncture... that boat sailed as soon as he put the ink to the paper.  It's not like you can go to him now, and say, "Hey, I know you wanted to go to Toronto, but we don't really accommodate players so you're going to Utica.  But I can admit, your signing wasn't a great decision, so we're all good here, right?"  The only thing left to do now is to make the best of the situation, and making the best of the situation isn't forcing Gagner to move to Utica while bumping a prospect off of PP1.  And while we're talking about goodwill, I doubt his agent or fellow players would think Canucks ignoring his request is a classy move as long as we expressed regrets about the contract.

[J-Dizzle]

14 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

You really took the time to make this lame ass meme? 

 

I dont constantly complain about our GM thank you very much.  It's more annoying watching you get offended and always trying to defend everything our GM does.  His signings have been brutal and I will display my displeasure.  What's your argument here?

You know hockey’s back when @The 5th Line is adamantly denying the fact he/she complains about..... well everything. 

[Nigerian]

45 minutes ago, GoldenAlien said:

The Canucks don't get to dictate the Comets' lineup.  Will the Canucks management talk to Cull, let him know what they think the players need to work on, etc?  Sure.  But much like Benning can talk to Green, but Green sets the lineup, Cull sets his own lineup.  He knows the Canucks cut his paycheck, he cares about developing prospects for the Canucks.  But end of the day, the fastest way for an AHL coach to get to the NHL is through winning.  You don't see an AHL coach from a bottom dweller team get offered an NHL gig, even if he's good with the kids.  And honestly, Cull's paid to win too.  While the pressure isn't as intense as the NHL, if the Comets finishes last in the league this year, he probably loses his job. 

 

If he thinks Sam Gagner on PP1 will get a few extra wins, he's going to do it.  We've seen the preference for vets, in every level, from the juniors to European leagues to the NHL.  Coaches like known commodities -- the Dale Weise and Aaron Rome of the world often push out rookies.  Yes, eventually a talented rookie will get his chance, but AHL is a developmental league.  Why are we making our top prospects wait 6 months just so they can get a look on the PP?  If they're going to play 12 mins and get no PP time, they could just stay with the big club and play on the 4th line.  The whole point of this is they can make mistakes, try things, and not be afraid they'll be sitting in the press box the next game.

 

As I've posted before -- guys like Gagner don't actually make a different in the outcome of prospects.  Playing with him wouldn't have turned Shinkaruk into Skinner, or Gaunce into J. Staal.  Shinkaruk actually did worse playing with Jankowski after he was traded -- and Jankowski was an AHL All-Star at the time and is now in the NHL and better than Gagner.  There's no reason that without Gagner, the prospects can't learn an NHL game.  Again, look at other AHL teams, how many has a guy like Gagner on the roster?  So what happens to all their prospects?  Just playing grinders' games?  Getting their potential destroyed?  How did Goldobin ever find a way to develop offensively, without Gagner feeding him passes?

 

If playing with Gagner for a few months can turn Palmu into DeBrincat, by all means, I'll book his Uber to Pearson airport.  But if a guy who projects to a 30pt NHL player still develops to a 30pt player after playing with Gagner, then Gagner has made zero difference.  It doesn't really matter how this guy became a 30pt NHL player.  And it's not like Kero and Gaudette are such terrible AHLers that playing with them derails your career.  If Gadjovich can't develop because he's playing with Gaudette, then he was always going to be another Archibald to begin with.

 

Whether the Gagner signing was good is pointless to debate at this juncture... that boat sailed as soon as he put the ink to the paper.  It's not like you can go to him now, and say, "Hey, I know you wanted to go to Toronto, but we don't really accommodate players so you're going to Utica.  But I can admit, your signing wasn't a great decision, so we're all good here, right?"  The only thing left to do now is to make the best of the situation, and making the best of the situation isn't forcing Gagner to move to Utica while bumping a prospect off of PP1.  And while we're talking about goodwill, I doubt his agent or fellow players would think Canucks ignoring his request is a classy move as long as we expressed regrets about the contract.

I agree with all of your points, although I believe that developing in a winning culture can have a huge impact in confidence. Having a lack of confidence can be the downfall for lots of players potential. I look at the Detroit model as an example. Good farm system known for developing players from all throughout the draft. A player like Gagne would only make the Comets a stronger more competitive team which I see as only benefitting the young forwards which we have an abundance of. 

[Rob_Zepp]

10 hours ago, The 5th Line said:

You really took the time to make this lame ass meme? 

 

I dont constantly complain about our GM thank you very much.  It's more annoying watching you get offended and always trying to defend everything our GM does.  His signings have been brutal and I will display my displeasure.  What's your argument here?

Nope, found it so took me about 9 seconds.   Someone knew you created it I guess.

 

uh, do you even read your own posts?   You do not complain?

 

i am not offended at all, just find your expectations out of whack with reality and to that end, please don’t be surprised when you see ducks at the lake....or stick to PlayStation 

[smithers joe]

putting money aside for a moment, our power play had been dismal. gagner was coming off a good year with columbus, especially on the power play. JB was trying to improve our PP. in hindsight, it didn't work out that great; eriksson was coming off a 30 goal season in boston and had showed great chemistry with the sedins at the world level. again it didn't live up to expectations. beagle brings grit, leadership and tenacity to our line up. it is something this team really needs. did he pay too much? yes, but being a bottom feeder, you have to out pay others to get the guys you want. 

has JB made some moves that didn't turn out?  by all means. that doesn't make him a bad GM, just one that has gambled to try and improve our team. will he make more questionable signings? probably. but as a professional hockey person he should always be looking to supply this team with what it needs.

what gms have not made moves that didn't turn out. 

if FA is not happy with him, he will change him. as for me, i'm happy with his work so far. 

[WonderTwinPowers]

4 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Nope, found it so took me about 9 seconds.   Someone knew you created it I guess.

 

uh, do you even read your own posts?   You do not complain?

 

i am not offended at all, just find your expectations out of whack with reality and to that end, please don’t be surprised when you see ducks at the lake....or stick to PlayStation 

5th line just really wants our management to be perfect. You know like...       Or....       Or how about?... 

 

Turns out all management teams make these mistakes to various degrees. But I guess it must be nice to always have something to complain about. 

[GoldenAlien]

12 hours ago, Nigerian said:

I agree with all of your points, although I believe that developing in a winning culture can have a huge impact in confidence. Having a lack of confidence can be the downfall for lots of players potential. I look at the Detroit model as an example. Good farm system known for developing players from all throughout the draft. A player like Gagne would only make the Comets a stronger more competitive team which I see as only benefitting the young forwards which we have an abundance of. 

There's a difference between generalities and specifics.  Is having a winning culture generally a positive?  Sure.  Is the team culture different if it wins 30 games, vs 50 games?  Yes.  Is the team culture different if it wins 48 games, vs 52 games?  No, and there's no way a prospect will turn out differently because his team had a 48 win season and not a 52 win season.

 

We're talking about Sam Gagner here -- not Connor McDavid.  For example, he was sent to the Lehigh Phantoms two seasons ago and had 6pts in 9GP.  The Comets play 76 games, but frequently has 3 games in 3 nights, so he's more likely to play 65-70 games.  

 

Going off of his performance with the Phantoms, he could get 47pts in 70GP.  Now look at Tanner Kero, who had 20pts in 36GP last season, which would be 39pts in 70GP.  His 20pts in 28GP the year before would be 50pts in 70GP.  Even Kero's NHL performance: 19pts in his last 55GP (two seasons), which is 26pts in 74GP -- isn't that different from Gagner's 31pts, though Kero doesn't play PP, where Gagner got 11 of his 31pts.  

 

Gaunce, in his last season in the AHL, had 38pts in 46GP, which projects out to 58pts in 70GP.  Even Cam Darcy, who had 24pts in 46 GP with the Comets last season, projects out to 37pts in 70GP.  If one of your centres had a 40pt season instead of a 50pt season, do you think the team would be significantly different?  Probably not.  And we also have MacMaster, who has 9pts in 14GP in the AHL.  Small sample size, but that projects to 45pts in 70GP.  

 

MacMaster is 22 years old.  Kero is 26, Gaunce and Darcy are 24, and Gaudette just turned 22.  Gagner is 29.  Maybe Gaunce can rediscover his scoring.  Maybe we can let MacMaster stick at C for a while and see how he does.  Maybe we can see if MacEwan can be a centre in the pros.  His 33pts in 66GP last year would be 35pts in 70GP, but that was just his rookie season.  You know what's not a maybe?  Sam Gagner finding untapped potential after a stint in the AHL.

 

Assuming you don't want Gaudette to play as 4C, a Kero, Gaudette, Gaunce, lineup down the middle won't be drastically different than a Gagner, Gaudette, Kero lineup.  Bottom line is, Gagner is just not that good.  He isn't the difference between a bubble team and a Calder Cup.  He's the difference between 48 wins and 52 wins, and in the long run, that isn't going to help or hurt any Canucks prospects.

[WonderTwinPowers]

23 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

Yeah actually lately most of my posts have been praising Elias or just having some fun in the GDT.  I call it like I see it, if i see something I like I will be positive, if I see our GM hand out million of dollars to a bunch of washed up players then yeah I'll bitch about it.  

 

You guys are like cult people, you make it seem like people have to choose a side (benning haters vs supporters)  If Benning makes a good move I will praise it, if he continually makes terrible FA signings I'll bitch.

 

Go make some more weird memes or something 

 

 Okaayyyy so just because every GM makes mistakes  im not allowed to comment on ours making one?  Every player makes mistakes but Edler seems to get crapped on by the fanbase every night..  I really hope you've never said anything bad about a player cause well you know, that would just be wrong and considered constant bitching

 

I take the players for what they are. Expecting perfection is delusional.

[J-Dizzle]

13 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

You take the players for what they are?  What does that even mean

 

I'm not expecting perfection but If i see a guy we signed for 9 million bucks playing AGAINST our young players then yeah I'm gonna say "wtf is going on here"

 

 

What happened is a guy earned a contract by having a stellar season and then didn’t live up to it once he was signed so management did the ballsy thing admitted it wasn’t working out and cut him.  Good on them for seeing it for what it was. 

[WonderTwinPowers]

47 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

You take the players for what they are?  What does that even mean

 

I'm not expecting perfection but If i see a guy we signed for 9 million bucks playing AGAINST our young players then yeah I'm gonna say "wtf is going on here"

 

 

As in Gagner is a player they took a chance on for a bottum six role and it didn't work, to quote Jared McCann "it is what it is". So they're doing what they can to remedy the situation. What's the use in complaining about it, if you understand every team deals with this eventually. 

[Noble 6]

16 hours ago, GoldenAlien said:

The Canucks don't get to dictate the Comets' lineup.  Will the Canucks management talk to Cull, let him know what they think the players need to work on, etc?  Sure.  But much like Benning can talk to Green, but Green sets the lineup, Cull sets his own lineup.  He knows the Canucks cut his paycheck, he cares about developing prospects for the Canucks.  But end of the day, the fastest way for an AHL coach to get to the NHL is through winning.  You don't see an AHL coach from a bottom dweller team get offered an NHL gig, even if he's good with the kids.  And honestly, Cull's paid to win too.  While the pressure isn't as intense as the NHL, if the Comets finishes last in the league this year, he probably loses his job. 

 

If he thinks Sam Gagner on PP1 will get a few extra wins, he's going to do it.  We've seen the preference for vets, in every level, from the juniors to European leagues to the NHL.  Coaches like known commodities -- the Dale Weise and Aaron Rome of the world often push out rookies.  Yes, eventually a talented rookie will get his chance, but AHL is a developmental league.  Why are we making our top prospects wait 6 months just so they can get a look on the PP?  If they're going to play 12 mins and get no PP time, they could just stay with the big club and play on the 4th line.  The whole point of this is they can make mistakes, try things, and not be afraid they'll be sitting in the press box the next game.

 

As I've posted before -- guys like Gagner don't actually make a different in the outcome of prospects.  Playing with him wouldn't have turned Shinkaruk into Skinner, or Gaunce into J. Staal.  Shinkaruk actually did worse playing with Jankowski after he was traded -- and Jankowski was an AHL All-Star at the time and is now in the NHL and better than Gagner.  There's no reason that without Gagner, the prospects can't learn an NHL game.  Again, look at other AHL teams, how many has a guy like Gagner on the roster?  So what happens to all their prospects?  Just playing grinders' games?  Getting their potential destroyed?  How did Goldobin ever find a way to develop offensively, without Gagner feeding him passes?

 

If playing with Gagner for a few months can turn Palmu into DeBrincat, by all means, I'll book his Uber to Pearson airport.  But if a guy who projects to a 30pt NHL player still develops to a 30pt player after playing with Gagner, then Gagner has made zero difference.  It doesn't really matter how this guy became a 30pt NHL player.  And it's not like Kero and Gaudette are such terrible AHLers that playing with them derails your career.  If Gadjovich can't develop because he's playing with Gaudette, then he was always going to be another Archibald to begin with.

 

Whether the Gagner signing was good is pointless to debate at this juncture... that boat sailed as soon as he put the ink to the paper.  It's not like you can go to him now, and say, "Hey, I know you wanted to go to Toronto, but we don't really accommodate players so you're going to Utica.  But I can admit, your signing wasn't a great decision, so we're all good here, right?"  The only thing left to do now is to make the best of the situation, and making the best of the situation isn't forcing Gagner to move to Utica while bumping a prospect off of PP1.  And while we're talking about goodwill, I doubt his agent or fellow players would think Canucks ignoring his request is a classy move as long as we expressed regrets about the contract.

 

I'm not trying to say that having Gagner in Utica would be the deciding factor in our prospects developing in to NHL players. I'm not trying to say that the only way for offensive prospects to develop is to play with other offensive vets. I'm not trying to say that Utica is in a terrible position right now. I'm not even trying to say that this was a completely terrible move with absolutely no benefits. 

 

All I'm trying to say is that having Gagner in Utica would have been better for the organization than having him in Toronto. It would be better for our prospects to play with someone of that caliber versus against him. 

[WonderTwinPowers]

12 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

What's the use in everybody complaining about Edler constantly, i mean, every team has a player who makes mistakes.  Why are some things off limits?  I watch players who have battled for this team for years get s**t on all the time but I can't say something when Benning hands out 10 mil to Sam fricken Gagner? 

 

I'd tell the people complaining about Edler the same thing I said to you. Edler has provided a ton of value to this team relative to what he's been paid throughout his career. Especially looking at what top 4 D go for today. But this is the Gagner thread. 

[Noble 6]

5 hours ago, smithers joe said:

putting money aside for a moment, our power play had been dismal. gagner was coming off a good year with columbus, especially on the power play. JB was trying to improve our PP. in hindsight, it didn't work out that great; eriksson was coming off a 30 goal season in boston and had showed great chemistry with the sedins at the world level. again it didn't live up to expectations. beagle brings grit, leadership and tenacity to our line up. it is something this team really needs. did he pay too much? yes, but being a bottom feeder, you have to out pay others to get the guys you want. 

has JB made some moves that didn't turn out?  by all means. that doesn't make him a bad GM, just one that has gambled to try and improve our team. will he make more questionable signings? probably. but as a professional hockey person he should always be looking to supply this team with what it needs.

what gms have not made moves that didn't turn out. 

if FA is not happy with him, he will change him. as for me, i'm happy with his work so far. 

 

Gagner (along with Boeser and Vanek) did improve our powerplay a considerable amount last year. That's exactly what Benning signed him to do. The problem is Benning didn't have the foresight to see that was pretty much all he could do. Signing a bottom-6 powerplay specialist and then being disappointed that he's a bottom-6 powerplay specialist doesn't look too good on the GM's ability to evaluate free agents. 

 

"did he pay too much? yes, but being a bottom feeder, you have to out pay others to get the guys you want. "

 

This notion really bothers me. Willingly overpaying for someone who's not a key part of your future core is just a really bad strategy. There really is no way to defend that. There is nobody that is worth overpaying who is not a top-3 forward/top-2 defenseman/ starting goalie. Does it happen? Yes, but that doesn't mean it needs to happen with us. If the only way to get a player on our team is pay 1 million extra or for 1 more year than he's worth, then we don't need that player. 

 

[Kootenay Gold]

10 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

All I'm trying to say is that having Gagner in Utica would have been better for the organization than having him in Toronto. It would be better for our prospects to play with someone of that caliber versus against him. 

I have to disagree on having Gagner in Utica as a better option. Utica already has a dearth of players on the roster vying for ice time. Giving ice time to Gagner is taking away ice time from a prospect more than likely. How is that better for a prospects development? The prospects on the Comets are learning to play against former NHL players such as Gagner and Cracknall who are on the Toronto roster. That to me is a good thing as it better prepares them for if, or when, they make it to the NHL

[Nigerian]

2 hours ago, GoldenAlien said:

There's a difference between generalities and specifics.  Is having a winning culture generally a positive?  Sure.  Is the team culture different if it wins 30 games, vs 50 games?  Yes.  Is the team culture different if it wins 48 games, vs 52 games?  No, and there's no way a prospect will turn out differently because his team had a 48 win season and not a 52 win season.

 

We're talking about Sam Gagner here -- not Connor McDavid.  For example, he was sent to the Lehigh Phantoms two seasons ago and had 6pts in 9GP.  The Comets play 76 games, but frequently has 3 games in 3 nights, so he's more likely to play 65-70 games.  

 

Going off of his performance with the Phantoms, he could get 47pts in 70GP.  Now look at Tanner Kero, who had 20pts in 36GP last season, which would be 39pts in 70GP.  His 20pts in 28GP the year before would be 50pts in 70GP.  Even Kero's NHL performance: 19pts in his last 55GP (two seasons), which is 26pts in 74GP -- isn't that different from Gagner's 31pts, though Kero doesn't play PP, where Gagner got 11 of his 31pts.  

 

Gaunce, in his last season in the AHL, had 38pts in 46GP, which projects out to 58pts in 70GP.  Even Cam Darcy, who had 24pts in 46 GP with the Comets last season, projects out to 37pts in 70GP.  If one of your centres had a 40pt season instead of a 50pt season, do you think the team would be significantly different?  Probably not.  And we also have MacMaster, who has 9pts in 14GP in the AHL.  Small sample size, but that projects to 45pts in 70GP.  

 

MacMaster is 22 years old.  Kero is 26, Gaunce and Darcy are 24, and Gaudette just turned 22.  Gagner is 29.  Maybe Gaunce can rediscover his scoring.  Maybe we can let MacMaster stick at C for a while and see how he does.  Maybe we can see if MacEwan can be a centre in the pros.  His 33pts in 66GP last year would be 35pts in 70GP, but that was just his rookie season.  You know what's not a maybe?  Sam Gagner finding untapped potential after a stint in the AHL.

 

Assuming you don't want Gaudette to play as 4C, a Kero, Gaudette, Gaunce, lineup down the middle won't be drastically different than a Gagner, Gaudette, Kero lineup.  Bottom line is, Gagner is just not that good.  He isn't the difference between a bubble team and a Calder Cup.  He's the difference between 48 wins and 52 wins, and in the long run, that isn't going to help or hurt any Canucks prospects.

I really appreciate the effort you put into your posts. +1 to you. 

 

And very true I was assuming Gagne would at least be ppg. 

[Noble 6]

1 hour ago, Kootenay Gold said:

I have to disagree on having Gagner in Utica as a better option. Utica already has a dearth of players on the roster vying for ice time. Giving ice time to Gagner is taking away ice time from a prospect more than likely. How is that better for a prospects development? The prospects on the Comets are learning to play against former NHL players such as Gagner and Cracknall who are on the Toronto roster. That to me is a good thing as it better prepares them for if, or when, they make it to the NHL

 

via @UticaHockey

 

 

 

 

 

What are you talking about? Are you going to tell me you'd rather have Darcy than Gagner?

[Kootenay Gold]

17 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

What are you talking about? Are you going to tell me you'd rather have Darcy than Gagner?

What are you blabbering about??? I never said anything about having one or the other! You would be OK having them both on the team?? I think not.

[GoldenAlien]

40 minutes ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

All I'm trying to say is that having Gagner in Utica would have been better for the organization than having him in Toronto. It would be better for our prospects to play with someone of that caliber versus against him. 

Thing is, better means nothing if he's not elevating Dahlen's long term potential from 50pts to 60pts.  If he doesn't change anyone's career, then the long term net effect on Canucks, as an organization, is zero.

 

But the long term effect of treating Gagner well will not be zero.  For example, from the Toronto Star:

“[Tavares] offered up a room for me,” said Gagner, now 29 and a veteran of 770 NHL games. “There are a lot of guys around the league, friends of mine, that have reached out.

“It’s nice to have that support. It gives you a bit of confidence when players around the league feel you can play at that level.”

 

Gagner has been in the league for 11 seasons, he came up through the Toronto Marlboros (recent alumni: Quinn & Jack Hughes), he played in the USHL, OHL, World Juniors.  The entire NHL has what, ~750 players?  My high school had 1200-1300 students.  Hockey is an incredibly small community and Gagner has many friends.

 

Say you have a friend, and his boss told him that he's getting transferred to a branch in Utica, because the office here no longer needs him.  He goes back and asks for the Toronto branch instead, because it would be much more comfortable for his family.  The boss goes, "Well, you work for us, so you go where I say you go."  Meanwhile, another friend was put in the same situation, but when he asked for a different location, his boss said, "Okay, I know this is a bad situation for you, so I'm going to do my best to put you where you want to be."  Which company would you want to work for the next time you're looking for a job?

 

If you got a job offer in another city, and know someone who used to work at that firm, wouldn't you shoot them a text and ask how their experience was?  So the next time a free agent, or a player with NTC, is getting interest from Vancouver, and they send Gagner a text, do you want him to tell them we're a team that treats players well, even when things don't work out?  Or do you want him to tell them we're a place that throws out players like yesterday's trash the second they're not needed?

 

At the end of the day, Gagner in Utica provides no long term upside for Vancouver, but refusing his request may have downsides.  There's no reason to take the risk of alienating him and his agents when we're getting nothing concrete out of it.

 

[Gaudette Celly]

Scored his first.

 

Edit: make that two!

[WeneedLumme]

1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

Scored his first.

 

Edit: make that two!

Maybe he'll tear it up down there and we can get something for him at the deadline.